## Facts

- Marcus Barrington and two Florida A&M University (FAMU) student co-conspirators engaged in a scheme to fraudulently change grades and student residency classifications by compromising FAMU’s grading system.
- Barrington initially used forged paper grade-change forms; when that became impractical, the conspirators shifted to a computer-based method.
- The conspirators installed keylogger software on computers in the registrar area to capture registrar employees’ usernames and passwords.
- Using captured credentials, they remotely accessed the system without authorization and made extensive unauthorized grade changes and residency-status alterations, affecting hundreds of records and causing significant tuition losses.
- A jury convicted Barrington of conspiracy to commit wire fraud involving a protected computer, fraud involving a protected computer, and three counts of aggravated identity theft.
- The district court imposed concurrent 60-month terms on the conspiracy and computer-fraud counts and mandatory consecutive 24-month terms on the aggravated identity theft counts, for a total of 84 months.
- Co-defendants pleaded guilty, testified for the government, and received substantially lower sentences following substantial-assistance motions.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting evidence of Barrington’s earlier forged grade-change activity was an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether limiting cross-examination of a cooperating co-defendant regarding pending state charges violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether the conspiracy count and the jury instructions on conspiracy and aggravated identity theft contained reversible error.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support aggravated identity theft convictions, including whether employee usernames and passwords are a “means of identification of another person” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
5. Whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable, including challenges to loss calculation, guideline enhancements, and an asserted Fifth Amendment violation at sentencing.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions and the 84-month sentence.
- The court held the prior-acts evidence was properly admitted to prove intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake, and any unfair prejudice was addressed through limiting instructions.
- The court held the Confrontation Clause was not violated because the jury had sufficient information to assess the cooperating witness’s credibility and motives without inquiry into additional pending charges.
- The court found no reversible error in the conspiracy charge or jury instructions, applying plain-error review where objections were not preserved.
- The court held the evidence supported the aggravated identity theft counts and accepted that employee usernames and passwords used for authentication could constitute a “means of identification.”
- The court upheld the guideline calculations and enhancements and found the sentence procedurally sound and substantively reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) permits admission of prior acts to prove intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake when relevant, temporally proximate, and not unfairly prejudicial in light of limiting instructions.
- The Confrontation Clause guarantees meaningful cross-examination, but trial courts may limit inquiry into collateral matters when the jury already has enough information to evaluate bias and credibility.
- Unpreserved duplicity and instructional challenges are reviewed for plain error; properly limiting instructions may prevent a meaningful risk of juror confusion or non-unanimity.
- For 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, using another person’s unique authentication credentials without authorization, in relation to a predicate fraud offense, can satisfy the “means of identification of another person” element when the credentials are tied to real individuals.
- Sentencing findings on loss and guideline enhancements are reviewed deferentially for clear error; complex intrusion methods and leadership in coordinated fraud may support sophisticated-means and role enhancements, and within-guidelines sentences plus mandatory consecutive terms are generally upheld absent procedural error or substantive unreasonableness.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Barrington’s cyber-fraud and aggravated identity theft convictions and his 84-month sentence, concluding that the trial rulings were within the district court’s discretion, that employee usernames and passwords used to authenticate access could qualify as “means of identification” under § 1028A, and that the guideline calculations and sentence were reasonable.


United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011)